Because it's not particularly insightful? Also, humans aren't "fucking crazy" so much as they make near-instant judgments sometimes in flawed ways, with associations, context, language, and thought getting jumbled up and being hijackable sometimes.
(That said, wow, it's so cool to be responding to a comment by Eliezer Yudkowsky, you're like a hero to me and brilliant and thanks for all your work on Bayes, rationality, and thinking, and tsuyoki naritai, and that three worlds collide story, and all the rest - seriously, huge admirer of yours here)
"... Because it's not particularly insightful? Also, humans aren't "fucking crazy" so much as they make near-instant judgments sometimes in flawed ways, with associations, context, language, and thought getting jumbled up and being hijackable sometimes. ..."
"fucking crazy" approximately equates to "make near-instant judgments sometimes in flawed ways, with associations, context, language, and thought getting jumbled up and being hijackable sometimes" and it's shorter. As a rule I don't downvote these kinds of remarks, just ignore them.
> Also, humans aren't "fucking crazy" so much as they make near-instant judgments sometimes in flawed ways, with associations, context, language, and thought getting jumbled up and being hijackable sometimes.
With respect, and with gratitude for your compliments, I ask: Is there really that much of a difference?
> With respect, and with gratitude for your compliments, I ask: Is there really that much of a difference?
I think so. "Fucking crazy" implies a madness/insanity/etc that can't be overcome. It's fine if you're trying to make a point and need quick words ("Wow, humans can be really fucking crazy sometimes" in response to a story), but pointing out how humans are crazy also shines a light on potential solutions.
Saying, "People are prone to making associations with certain words instead of concepts" is helpful - you can think, "Okay, then how can I use descriptive words that aren't loaded with unnecessary baggage?" Or if you're trying to persuade, you can look for terms that are favorable. Or you can point out the error in word association. Or you can try to "humanize" the concept - that's my guess at what happened in this particular story. "Homosexuals" implies someone else - a third party, an enemy, "not one of us". "Gay men and lesbians" implies people, humans.
Just writing off humanity with, "People are fucking crazy" makes it easier for people to shrug their shoulders and say, "Well, that's how it is." Instead, I think it's something to be overcome. The more we point out exactly what our errors tend to be, the more we can work specifically on them.
Fair enough, but I hope you won't overlook the points that:
1) People are, in fact, fucking crazy.
2) People often have difficulty in coming to terms with the above fact in its simple form, to the detriment of their development as rationalists; it's why I use "People are crazy, the world is mad" as a slogan. They pass up opportunities like a valid startup idea or signing up for cryonics because they think that other people will laugh, and they haven't gotten on a deep gut level that the people laughing at them are crazy. Vide: http://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Conformity_bias
This is why I objected to the downvoting of the original comment (I'm pleased to see it's been voted up now). The referenced poll is, in fact, more proof that humans are fucking crazy, and people need proof of that.
(That said, wow, it's so cool to be responding to a comment by Eliezer Yudkowsky, you're like a hero to me and brilliant and thanks for all your work on Bayes, rationality, and thinking, and tsuyoki naritai, and that three worlds collide story, and all the rest - seriously, huge admirer of yours here)